Talk:Gibraltar

Archive

The talk page was getting very long, so I have archived it. Pfainuk talk 10:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

"Question of Gibraltar" and blanket reverting

Regarding my edit:

• regardless of what anyone thinks of the other issue, blanket reverting is not good. If you disagree with one change, don't remove the other. If you disagree with both, argue for both, not just one.
• regarding the term "Question of Gibraltar": there is no need for a disclaimer like "only the Spanish use it", as long as there is no indication that Gibraltarians or the British would call it by another term. In fact, they don't call it at all, considering it a non-issue. But non-issues do not create problems between Spain and Britain and these problems are the content of the sentence in question (i.e. without these, we wouldn't have that question). Gibraltarians are of course entitled to their opinion and their wish to retain the status quo. But for that we do not need such disclaimers. (And note, this situation is not unique - there have been countless "Questions of ..." (e.g. the "German Question", in which one side did not accept that there was a question - without WP using such disclaimers. No prejudicing this way or that way is intendend. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If the British and Gibraltarians do not call it the Question of Gibraltar, we should not imply that they do, as I believe your edit did. If it is only used by the Spanish, there seems little reason not to say that it is a Spanish term. Pfainuk talk 21:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The concept and term is considered HIGHLY OFFENSIVE in Gibraltar. Without wishing to get into a political argument its also a flawed assumption that we want to maintain a 'Status Quo' which is why there is a new 'non colonial' constitution now in place. --Gibnews (talk) 09:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The term "cuestión" is better translated from Spanish to English as "issue", not "question". I've edited it.

Its reported in the media as 'Question' so thats the way it is. --Gibnews (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

could we have more on the conflict

Or a good redirect to the arguments favouring British neo-colonialism and pro Spanish re-acquisition. Furthermore- should there be some discussion in light of the post 1955 UN position on Decolonization with special reference to the UK and Holland. BY which case, any "treaty of Perpetuity" rendered invalid and somewhat viewed ludicrous in view today's UN General Assembly and UN Conventions. I believe the UK under Raffles declared Billiton and Bantam Islands in my nation Indonesia for all perpetuity- but since we kicked the colonials out, they've not asked for it back in light of Raffles' claims. Thoughts? Opinions? Please excuse my English if it comes across burusque- it is not my native tongue.Starstylers (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

What are suggesting exactly? I haven't a clue from that random discourse? If you're suggesting some sort of discussion on the merits of Spanish/Gibraltar/UK case? Thats not what Wikipedia is about. Justin talk 19:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not an article on the dispute, it is an article on Gibraltar. We do have an article on the disputed status of Gibraltar. Note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox and its talk pages are not a discussion forum: please do not use the talk page to make comments not directly connected to the improvement of the article. Pfainuk talk 19:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)